PowerSwitch

On the BBC news - just now:

Cameron to reduce housing benefit to under 25's
Rules out a 'mansion tax'
More cuts to welfare

Peak Oil relevance? Yes, well stability is required during any transition or downgrade. Is this the way to achieve such stability?

Pleb!

Keeping in mind it is the elite that govern us, one way of handling peak oil is to ensure that an ever greater proportion of wealth is in the hands of the elite, i.e. grab an ever larger portion of an ever smaller cake.

energy-village wrote:Keeping in mind it is the elite that govern us,

Well. I thought it was the conservatives!

I read this title and thought you were going to ask our advice on the pros and cons of getting a horse.

But yes it does appear that HMG are playing a giant game of Jenga with the population of this country. There's only one way it can end.

maudibe wrote: Rules out a 'mansion tax'

Music to Ed Milliband's ears, causes any libdem with a conscience to squirm.

Dozens of my friends, and some of Famille Renewable, are lifelong LibDems. And for a lot of them that's not just voting, that's card-carrying. I do wonder what on earth they're thinking. Perhaps they genuinely don't know how tough life can be for the not-well-orf. Perhaps they think a national government has no power to prevent all this, which begs the question, why pay subs to any political party at all?

They do all seem to have consciences. It must be really painful. Perhaps it's like being employed to do something you don't really agree with. People just "block it out" because there looks like being no way round it.

But there is.

RenewableCandy wrote:Dozens of my friends, and some of Famille Renewable, are lifelong LibDems. And for a lot of them that's not just voting, that's card-carrying. I do wonder what on earth they're thinking.

What are they thinking now, RC? Lots of people pay subs to political parties that aren't in power. Once in power, they're invariably exposed for what they are - mere politicians, with all the deceit, power lust, co-opting, disregard for principles, short-term-ness, shallowness and disillusion-provoking the title entails. For the grossest example in recent history, think Obama, pre- and post election. 100% con pre, 100% republican post.

To be fair, Obama (like Blair) didn't actually promise much. What does "Yes we can!" mean? Not a lot. He was elected on image/style and fear of letting the other one win, not a detailed set of policies.

RenewableCandy wrote:Dozens of my friends, and some of Famille Renewable, are lifelong LibDems. And for a lot of them that's not just voting, that's card-carrying. I do wonder what on earth they're thinking. Perhaps they genuinely don't know how tough life can be for the not-well-orf. Perhaps they think a national government has no power to prevent all this, which begs the question, why pay subs to any political party at all?

They do all seem to have consciences. It must be really painful. Perhaps it's like being employed to do something you don't really agree with. People just "block it out" because there looks like being no way round it.

But there is.

Can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Big omelet required. Politicians terrified of breaking eggs.

UndercoverElephant wrote:To be fair, Obama (like Blair) didn't actually promise much. What does "Yes we can!" mean? Not a lot. He was elected on image/style and fear of letting the other one win, not a detailed set of policies.

True, but: Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen/Libya/Iran/Guantanamo/climate change/etc.

Of all those, Gitmo, which looked the easiest at first blush, is the only one for which I understand his failure to act. Wanting to close the camp, he had of course to send all the prisoners home. But where is "home" for these people, and would the said places actually take them back? It ended up being abit of a logistical nightmare.

Whereas, not fighting a war (that isn't on your own territory), in comparison, is a piece of cake.

RenewableCandy wrote:Of all those, Gitmo, which looked the easiest at first blush, is the only one for which I understand his failure to act. Wanting to close the camp, he had of course to send all the prisoners home. But where is "home" for these people, and would the said places actually take them back? It ended up being abit of a logistical nightmare.

That one's easy. Their home is any place which recognises the need for a global jihad to create a one-world islamic state.

Which is not a justification for waterboarding them.